macro ring flash

[Tony Moore]

Hi Y'all,

Does anyone use a macro ring flash? I am thinking of buying one and would be interested to hear from anyone with experience of using one.

Tony.

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Tony,

Yes - I have used one on occasion. As with all flash units, they need to be used carefully and I, personally, like to mix flash with ambient light - otherwise you end up with unnatural-looking shots and shadows.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Tony Moore]

Thanks Peter,

I was thinking of using it for extreme close up work - eggs and the like- and also to enable me to stop down when taking shots outside in dull weather. I'll probabaly start saving my pennies. Incidentally, what did you use for your brilliant close up of a Purple Hairstreak egg, which you posted on the 'what to do in winter' thread? Awsome detail .

Tony.

[Pete Eeles]

Funny you should say that, since I often use a flash when taking extreme closeups - especially of eggs! Even with a tripod, you can't always keep the plant still - so a flash can help! There are occasions when you can get away without using a flash of course, in which case the flash is a backup Sometimes I can get away with using the built-in flash and bounce it off a reflector and onto the subject, since the extension of the lens I use (a Sigma 105mm macro) actually gets in the way!

I use the Canon MR 14EX ring flash.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Tony Moore]

Thanks again Pete, ring-flash it is!!

T.

[Paul Brock]

Tony

Sounds like you are decided! I often use a Minolta ring flash with my Minolta Dynax 7D and 50mm Minolta macro lens. It's brilliant for dead insects (at A16 or A22) as the shadows are almost eliminated, I've taken thousands of pictures of type specimens*. The flash has the advantage of four switch on or off light settings - I mainly photograph stick insects and have taken quite a few pictures in almost pitch dark conditions; experimented with moths in the New Forest this year and very pleased with the results, the flash works well with minimal light such as a torch held away from the photo 'target' so the light is not bright. Experimenting a little with the light settings produces some excellent results for butterflies in the wild....otherwise, as you know even slight wind can virtually ruin a picture - some people dislike sharp backgrounds, but with good composition there shouldn't be too many problems. My Comma underside photo in the Sept competition is not doing too badly, but that wasn't taken with macro flash; however, my photos of the same subject at F16 with macro flash are almost identical, it obviously depends how far vegetation is behind the subject as to whether it is blurred or not.

Paul
*probably why someone said my Silver-Spotted Skipper entry in August was "compositionally bad. This is an entry in a scientific journal, not a photo competition" That's where my expertise is! However, it's a matter of taste, some people prefer backgrounds showing typical habitat etc. I personally dislike blatantly 'arty' photos, with a virtually plain background, but each to their own....

[Tony Moore]

Paul wrote

I personally dislike blatantly 'arty' photos

And hear, hear, says I! - it's a butterfly site not an entry for the Turner Prize .

And thanks for your comments on ring flashes (re-reading that last, it's a good job that this is a genteel site, and not given to double entendres )

Tony.

[Gruditch]

I personally dislike blatantly 'arty' photos, with a virtually plain background

Subject with a blurred out background "arty", I would of thought that was the exact opposite.
An arty butterfly image is surely when the photographer tries to deliberately include some attractive foliage that enhances the image, a pic with a blurred background can be equally beautiful if the subject is perched well, and the subject is sharp, but I would class them more as a classic Macro shot. An ID shot is for instance, a butterfly sat on a lawn, the image gives a good identification as to what it is, but with no regard for its environment, or how visually pleasing the image is.

One should open their minds to all sorts, and types of images and try to perfect them all.

Gruditch

[Chris Pickford]

I've found a ring flash very useful at magnifications of 1x or more, although the results look very unnatural (dead boring even) unless there is something close behind to avoid the "caught in the car headlamps" look.

For example, sheltering in a rose during a thunderstorm (old manual centron £20 ring flash):-


Chris

[Malcolm Farrow]

Hi Tony

I was able to borrow a ring flash (from a dentist friend of mine) and found it worked very well with extreme close ups, as others have mentioned, but I didn't like the effect it produced when photographing normal living butterflies. The lighting is direct and the flash is very close to the lens; as a result, the design is convenient to use but it tends to produce rather flat and harsh lighting. This might be okay where the flash is being underexposed to produce a little fill-in and the majority of the exposure is provided by daylight, but the more the flash influences the exposure, the less attractive I found it to be.

I don't think you mention what camera you use, so I don't know what options might be available for you. I use flash quite often for insect photography, but always bounce the light into a reflector. This has the advantage of producing much softer lighting, and also means the light is coming from a more oblique angle, which improves modeling. Years ago, Olympus made a very fancy ring flash that bounced the lighting into a saucer shaped reflector for their OM system, called a T8. It was a potentially excellent solution but, sadly, no one makes anything similar now and the otherwise excellent OM cameras are getting a bit long in the tooth compared to modern digital SLRs. The nearest modern equivalent is probably the Nikon R1C1 system, which is something of a hybrid, but may provide better modeling and may even allow diffused flash output, though I think this feature is really designed to allow extreme close ups.

Personally, I think an ordinary flash gun and a diffuser works at least as well and is significantly cheaper - and you can use it for normal photography too - but YMMV.

Good luck with your work, whatever option you choose!
Best wishes
Malcolm

[Tony Moore]

Hi Malcolm,

Sorry to be so long in replying, but I've only just seen your post. I was thinking of the Sigma RF on a Sigma 105mm - I'm now not so sure, especially as the newly announced Sony version is unlikely to be available until well into next year. Certainly, a normal flashgun would be more generally useful. Does one have to have a dedicated 'Macro' flash? if such a thing exists. I'm on a pretty steep learning curve at the moment, so any advice would be welcome

Tony.

[Malcolm Farrow]

Hi Tony

No, you certainly don't need a dedicated macro flash, a 'normal' flash gun will do. The secret, at least from my own experience, is to use the natural daylight that's available as much as possible and only rely on the flash as a 'fill-in', to reduce the contrast a little and lighten the darkest shadows, so that colour and detail is revealed in a way that looks completely natural. This is particularly useful when shooting into the light, or in the middle of a bright, sunny, summers day, when the lighting can be very harsh. All modern digital cameras allow a lot of control over flash. I suggest using the default TTL flash setting, rather than 'auto' or 'manual' but to apply what's called flash compensation, reducing the flash output. You can experiment to find a setting that works well for most subjects, though you may need to modify it when shooting whites. I find a setting of -1.5 stops works well with my Nikon.

The other trick is to defuse the flash output. With a simple gun that fires directly at the subject, a little tissue paper or a paper hankie will help a bit. But it's much better to use a flash gun that has a head that can be pointed upwards to 'bounce' the light. You can then fire the light into a diffuser so that the light becomes indirect and much softer. I use a very simple attachment called a Lumiquest Ultrasoft, but there's all sorts of gadgets available if you do a bit of searching, or you could even make your own. I'll attach a picture of the rig I use so you can see what I mean. It looks a little cumbersome but in use I hardly notice it and the results are excellent.

Hope this helps

Best wishes

Malc

[Tony Moore]

Brilliant, Malcolm,

Just the sort of advice I needed. Hope to show some results ere long.

Tony.